1. This is a case in which one has the feeling that the accused who deserves to be punished for his audacious conduct has escaped by an accident. In this respect, it is similar to Re Sinnu v. Goundan  38 Mad. 1028 Tonkya v. Jagamma A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 1009 Venkatarama Aiyar v. Sundaram Pillai A. I. R. 1923 Mad. 439 and Crl. R. C. No. 428 of 1925. The first of these cases may be distinguished on the ground that it is the District Magistrate who moved the High Court and in such a case there might well be an appeal against acquittal by the Local Government. In all the other cases, the complainant sought the assistance of the High Court.
2. In Crl. R. C. No. 428 of 1925, the complainant's evidence was closed, his pleader was present and the case was posted at an unusual hour and Krishnan, J., might well have held that the order under Section 247 of the Criminal P. C., was not a proper order. But these cases resemble more Venkatarama Aiyar v. Sundaram Pillai A. I. R. 1923 Mad. 439 and Tonkya v. Jagamma A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 1009 It is true that in view of the fact that there were six adjournments (none of them at the instance of the complainant) one feels some sympathy with the complainant, but still, it is difficult to say on the facts that the Magistrate exercised his discretion improperly. It is true he is not bound to wait the whole day. He might have waited for some time more.
3. I am not to be taken as holding that the High Court has no power to interfere with an order under Section 247 of the Criminal P. C., in revision. If the order is improper, the High Court can interfere. The petition is dismissed.